Posted on 06/01/2004 1:13:25 PM PDT by GeraldP
In 2001 two events at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) at The Hague put the subject of genocide in the former Yugoslavia back on the front pages of newspapers. Firstly, Bosnian Serb General Radislav Krstic was convicted of genocide against the Muslim population of the Bosnian town of Srebrenica, the first conviction at the ICTY for this gravest of crimes. Secondly and more spectacularly, former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic was indicted and put on trial for genocide against the Muslim and Croat population of Bosnia-Herzegovina as a whole.
These events at the ICTY inflamed the bitter controversies that have raged over this conflict since it broke out in 1991. Internationally, political opinion has been divided into two camps characterized by their conflicting analyses of the crisis and views of the correct international response. On the one side were those who viewed the war as a result of Serbian aggression and expansionism and who generally advocated military intervention by the West in response. On the other side were those who viewed the conflict as a civil war between competing nationalisms (Serb, Croat, Muslim, and Albanian) in which the Serb side was if anything less to blame than the others. They tended to blame Western interference for catalysing the conflict and to reject military intervention against Serbian forces.
For the sake of convenience, we may refer to the first camp as the ‘orthodox’ and the second as the ‘revisionist’.
The debate between these two camps has continued to dominate discourse on the former Yugoslavia in the West up till the present day. Although the events at The Hague in 2001 marked a defeat for the revisionist camp, its more determined members have responded by denying both the validity of the charges of genocide and the legitimacy of the ICTY. The revisionist analysis of the wars in the former Yugoslavia therefore constitutes one aspect of the Western response to the phenomenon of genocide in the contemporary world, one that is in some ways related to similar ‘revisionist’ analyses of the prior genocide in Pol Pot’s Cambodia and the contemporaneous genocide in Rwanda.
The use of the word ‘revisionist’ to describe this current of opinion serves a dual purpose, for the revisionists seek on the one hand to oppose what they see as the mainstream, orthodox view of the wars in the former Yugoslavia and on the other to challenge the very notion that genocide took place. Thus they are in some ways the counterpart to the Holocaust revisionists. While the revisionists under consideration correctly point out that the massacres in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1992-95 and in Kosovo in 1998-99 are not on a scale with those of Auschwitz their arguments resemble in some ways those of the Holocaust revisionists while their own frequent exploitation of the Holocaust legacy contains some startling ambiguities.
Although the revisionist camp stretches right across the political spectrum to encompass liberals, conservatives, socialists, and members of the far right, the ideological motivation of each of these groups is very different. The current I wish to analyse here consists of people who are to the left of mainstream Social Democracy and who oppose what they see as the anti-Serbian or anti-Yugoslav policies of the Western alliance. It includes members of many different far-left traditions: left Labourites and Social Democrats; Christian Socialists; Orthodox Communists; Trotskyists; Maoists; anarchists; and others. For the sake of convenience I shall refer to them as ‘left revisionists’, meaning those who, on the basis of a radical left-wing philosophy, seek 1) to revise the negative evaluation of the Milosevic regime made by politically mainstream commentators; 2) to deny that genocide took place and downplay the violence and suffering involved in the wars in the former Yugoslavia; and 3) to shift the blame for this violence and suffering, as well as for the break-up of Yugoslavia, on to the Western alliance. Other adherents of a radical left-wing philosophy who oppose Western military intervention in the Balkans but who also opposed the Milosevic regime do not belong to this category and are not the subjects of this essay. My purpose here is neither to discuss the merits and demerits of a left-wing philosophy, nor to analyse the events in the former Yugoslavia themselves, nor to address the advantages and disadvantages of Western military intervention. This is a study of the ideology of left revisionism itself. The present author makes no pretence at neutrality in this debate - he belongs firmly in the ‘orthodox’ camp - and this is above all a study of the extremes to which one current of Western opinion is prepared to go and the intellectual and moral somersaults it is prepared to perform, in order to avoid confronting the reality of genocide. In order to understand the erroneous analysis on which left revisionism is based, it is necessary to examine the real causes of the break-up of Yugoslavia, which lie in the policies of the Milosevic regime.
Ideology of the left revisionists “What about the Kurds?” is viewed by the left revisionists as their clinching argument in the case against the NATO intervention in Kosovo: if Western leaders were motivated to intervene in Kosovo out of concern at the suffering of the Kosovo Albanians, why have they not intervened to protect the Kurds from Turkish oppression? Or the Palestinians from the Israelis? I wish to turn the question around and to ask “What about the Albanians?” If the left-wing revisionists are concerned with the suffering of oppressed nationalities, as they claim to be regarding the Kurds, Palestinians, and others, it needs to be explained why did they not speak out against Milosevic’s persecution of the Kosovo Albanians, or of the Bosnian Muslims, or of the Croats. It needs to be explained why Serbian or Yugoslav military intervention was less objectionable to them than American military intervention, even when it was incomparably more bloody. It needs to be asked why the six hundred or so Yugoslav civilian deaths during the Kosovo War were ‘worthy’ victims in a way that the tens if not hundreds of thousands of Bosnians killed by Serbian forces were not.
This double standard may in part be attributed to anti-Americanism or ‘anti-imperialism’, whereby members of the far left subordinate their morality to the ‘higher cause’ of opposing the United States. There is a long tradition on the far left of supporting the weaker country against the stronger on an anti-imperialist basis. V.I. Lenin wrote in 1915 that “if tomorrow Morocco were to declare war on France, or India on Britain, or Persia or China on Russia and so on, these would be ‘just’ or ‘defensive’ wars irrespective of who was the first to attack; any socialist would wish the oppressed, dependant, and unequal states victory over the oppressor, slave-holding, and predatory ‘Great Powers’.”[1] Such a line of reasoning might conceivably have led members of the far left to support Milosevic’s Serbia as a victim of ‘American imperialism’, even to the point of ignoring or denying its crimes against the non-Serb peoples of the former Yugoslavia.
Simple ‘anti-imperialism’ is however insufficient to explain the motives of the left revisionists, who do not themselves couch their arguments in ‘anti-imperialist’ terms. Rather they prefer to make pedantic, legalistic quibbles over such issues as the sovereignty of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the authority of the UN Security Council, and the exact numbers of Albanian dead; appropriate arguments for international lawyers, perhaps, but scarcely the kind usually favoured in the polemics of the revolutionary left. The focus of the left revisionists is in fact less on denouncing the US as an evil in and of itself – though this is clearly an element - than on defending politically the Milosevic regime. Other regimes that have clashed with the Western alliance during the past decade – in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, and elsewhere – have not received similar support from the Western left. To the best of my knowledge nobody has tried to claim that Saddam Hussein is a man of peace who respects the territorial integrity of Iraq’s neighbours or that the Taliban are champions of women’s rights and cultural diversity. Nobody, except Osama bin-Laden and eccentric chess-grandmaster Bobby Fischer, has treated the victims of the World Trade Centre bombing with the callousness and contempt with which left revisionists speak of the dead of Vukovar, Srebrenica, and Racak. The Serbia of Milosevic enjoyed the unique position in the pantheon of the ‘rogue states’ of the 1990s as the only one that was supported politically, not just defended from attack, by much of the Western left.
The left revisionists are holding on to the anti-humanist, anti-moralist, anti-democratic bathwater long after the revolutionary baby has died and its corpse decayed. Instead of being moved by the events in Eastern Europe and the USSR in 1989-91 to reevaluate their political philosophy, many of them reacted by clinging even more stubbornly to every last straw from the wreckage of the Communist Atlantis.
Milosevic and the West
One such straw was the Milosevic regime in Belgrade. Its credentials as a ‘left-wing’ regime were pretty poor: Milosevic’s ruling party was called the ‘Socialist Party of Serbia’ (SPS) and had formerly been the League of Communists of Serbia, but SPS leaders Slobodan Milosevic and Borisav Jovic emphasised from the start their commitment to free-market reforms. Under their tenure the gap between rich and poor massively increased, social services were greatly reduced, free healthcare effectively ended, public transport collapsed, and a large new class of black marketeers and organised criminals created. To look to Milosevic’s Serbia as an ‘alternative’ to the capitalist West was pretty much scraping the bottom of the socialist barrel. Radovan Karadzic’s Bosnian Serb nationalist regime in Pale was even less credibly ‘progressive’: ideologically anti-Communist, Karadzic’s Serb Democratic Party identifies with the monarchist and Nazi-collaborationist Chetnik movement far more openly than the Tudjman regime in Zagreb ever identified with the Ustashas. Nevertheless, in the eyes of the left revisionists, to accept that Belgrade and its proxies were committing aggression and genocide was akin to admitting that the liberals really had been right all along about the negative character of Communism. In their minds the Cold War is still being fought on the battlefields of Kosovo. Twenty-five years ago Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman complained of the poor image conveyed by the Western media of the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia. They wrote that “What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasising alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial US role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered.”[2] Today both authors use similar arguments to downplay the suffering of the Kosovo Albanians and to shift the blame for it away from the Milosevic regime and onto the US. In Chomsky’s words, Turkey is guilty of “massive atrocities” against the Kurds; Indonesia of “aggression and massacre” of “near-genocidal levels” in East Timor; Israel of “murderous and destructive” operations in Lebanon; but there is no mention of Kurdish, East Timorese, or Palestinian atrocities.[3] By contrast, Chomsky uses no such emotive language when discussing the Serbian killing of Albanians; they are a “response” and “reaction” to Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) attacks. Meanwhile the KLA was guilty of “targeting Serb police and civilians”; “killing six Serbian teenagers”; the “killing of a Serb judge, police, and civilians”; and so on. The picture Chomsky consequently sketches is of atrocities by both sides and, since KLA actions were “designed to elicit a violent and disproportionate Serbian response”, the implication is that the Milosevic regime was less to blame than the KLA.[4] When a US client massacres innocent civilians it is wholly to blame; when a ‘socialist’ regime does so it is the victims who are primarily to blame.
There is a term for this attitude: moral relativism. In its far-left variety there are two sides to its coin. On the one hand there is a holier-than-thou condemnation of every Western failing (“What about the Kurds/Palestinians/East Timorese?”), allowing the left revisionists always to damn Western policy for its moral imperfections no matter what it is. The West is therefore damned simultaneously for intervening in Kosovo and for colluding in the Turkish oppression of the Kurds and for maintaining sanctions against Iraq, though it is clear that ultimately the West cannot easily reject military intervention, sanctions, and appeasement all at the same time. Combined with this all-trumping moralism in the left-revisionist mind-set, like the opposite pole of a magnet, is a cold-blooded immoralism, according to which the left-winger is absolutely unmoved by the crimes of the Revolution performed for the greater good. More striking even than the defence or denial of crimes against humanity carried out by the left revisionists is their sheer lack of any positive vision for the future or political raison d’etre whatsoever. They should not be seen as ‘pro-Serb’, for the Serb people are unlikely to benefit from their actions. They are offering precisely nothing to the long-suffering people of Serbia in return for suffering sanctions and isolation and defending war criminals from the ICTY. Rather, they appear to view ‘resistance to Western imperialism’ as something worthwhile for its own sake, no matter how much self-destruction it results in for Serbia and how much misery it inflicts on the Serbs. The Chetnik leader Draza Mihailovic accused the British during World War II of “fighting to the last Serb in Yugoslavia”.[5] The same could be said of the contemporary left revisionists, but with one crucial difference: Churchill offered the Serbs something concrete in return for their sacrifices, namely liberation from Nazism, which he duly helped to bring about. By contrast, the left revisionists really are offering the Serbs nothing but blood, toil, tears, and sweat. Equally conspicuous by their absence are constructive proposals of the left revisionists regarding Kosovo’s future. For all his lofty denunciations of the West’s policy, the only alternative Chomsky can suggest for a resolution of the Kosovo question that would have avoided NATO bombing is the partition of Kosovo between Serbs and Albanians as suggested by Dobrica Cosic, the father of contemporary Serb nationalism and one of the architects of Yugoslavia’s wars.[6] As the Albanians make up at least 80% of the population of Kosovo and as the Serb villages are scattered in enclaves throughout the province, what this implies is the expulsion of the Albanian majority from half of Kosovo so that it can be settled by Serbs from elsewhere and therefore satisfy the Serb-nationalist demand for a face-saving formula short of Kosovo’s complete independence.
The left revisionists founded their analysis of Yugoslavia’s collapse on the false premise that because Serbia was in some bizarre sense a ‘socialist’ state in their eyes, the West ‘ought to be’ hostile to it, regardless of all evidence to the contrary. They therefore invented a Western conspiracy to explain the Yugoslav collapse and the subsequent defeats of Milosevic’s Serbia. In Michael Parenti’s view all opposition to Milosevic, be it from the Croats, Muslims, Albanians, or even the Serbian opposition, was simply the expression of such a conspiracy. According to Parenti, Western hostility to Yugoslavia was due to the fact that “after the overthrow of Communism throughout Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) [sic - Parenti means the SFRY] remained the only nation in that region that would not voluntarily discard what remained of its socialism and install an unalloyed free market system”. Consequently “the US goal has been to transform the FRY [sic] into a Third World region, a cluster of weak right-wing principalities”.[7] Following the break-up the FRY resisted privatisation of its socialised industry, continues Parenti, and “as far as the Western free-marketeers were concerned, these enterprises had to be either privatised or demolished. A massive aerial destruction like the one delivered upon Iraq might be just the thing needed to put Belgrade more in step with the New World Order.”[8] In other words, the US engineered Yugoslavia’s destruction and then bombed Serbia in order to bring about the privatisation of its socialised economy. Parenti provides not a single source to back up these assertions; he omits to mention that Milosevic privatised Serbia’s telecommunications system with Britain’s Douglas Hurd acting as intermediary.
Of course, Washington in 1991 did seek the end of Communist rule in Yugoslavia, just as it had previously in Poland and Hungary. But Washington did not seek to break up Poland or Hungary. The myth that the Western powers destroyed Yugoslavia and persecuted Serbia because they were ‘socialist’ is made above all to satisfy the emotional need of the left revisionists to believe that the dictatorships they spent years defending were in some sense ‘progressive’ and hence unacceptable to the powers that be.
It is true that Serbia was subjected to a NATO assault in 1999 and that Western leaders rejoiced in Milosevic’s overthrow the following year. But to deduce from this that the West was already ‘anti-Serb’ during the Croatian war in 1991 - eight years earlier - is a bit like saying that the West viewed Saddam Hussein as an enemy during the Iran-Iraq war or Osama bin-Laden as an enemy during the Soviet-Afghan war. During the Gulf crisis of 1990-91 the Milosevic regime supported the US-led drive to expel the Iraqis from Kuwait. Thus, following a meeting with US President George Bush on 1 October 1990 Borisav Jovic, at the time President of Yugoslavia, recorded that “President Bush expressed special satisfaction and gratitude to Yugoslavia for adopting the same position of condemning Iraqi aggression and the annexation of Kuwait. He is pleased and encouraged by the unity of the international community regarding the crisis in the Gulf and Iraq.” Jovic on this occasion boasted to Bush that “we [Yugoslavs] are the only Eastern European country that has almost developed and established a market economy system. Now we are at a critical point, but we will overcome it too over the next few years, which is why we need the understanding and aid of the United States with international financial institutions and in the business world.” Finally, responding to Bush’s query regarding the presence of Iraqi jets in Yugoslavia, Jovic informed him that “We have a contract from earlier, before the crisis, to repair 16 MiGs for the Iraqi air-force. They will not be delivered to Iraq now. Two of them were dismantled in the workshop, after which they were gathered up and tested or transferred to another location in order not to hinder the normal work in the workshop.” Jovic records that “President Bush thanked me for that.”[9] So much for the argument that the US victimised Serbia as a ‘socialist’ and ‘defiant’ state. The left revisionists are fond of pointing out that both Saddam Hussein and Osama bin-Laden were originally allies of the US, but they are reluctant to acknowledge Western collaboration with Milosevic because such an admission would ruin their claim of Western victimisation of ‘socialist’ Serbia.
In 1991 the American UN mediator Cyrus Vance negotiated the so-called ‘Vance Plan’ to end the conflict in Croatia involving the use of UN peacekeepers to protect Serb-held territory in Croatia; even Jovic described it as “exceptionally favourable to the Serb side”.[10] Every single Western peace plan for Bosnia was based on the premise of Bosnia’s partition; every one gave Karadzic’s Bosnian Serbs a much larger share of Bosnia than their proportion of the population would warrant. UN troops in Bosnia collaborated systematically with Ratko Mladic’s forces, helping them murder the Bosnian Deputy Prime Minister in 1993; British troops in Central Bosnia killed dozens of Croat troops[11] and in his memoir of the conflict British Major Vaughan Kent-Payne describes beating up a Croat soldier.[12] UN forces drove the Bosnian Army from Mt. Igman in the autumn of 1994, using rocket launchers to destroy its trenches. Most notoriously, the West maintained an arms embargo against Bosnia which the British and French, though not the Americans, enforced rigorously to the bitter end. Meanwhile not a single NATO missile struck Serbia throughout the Croatian and Bosnian wars while Milosevic was the respected interlocutor of Douglas Hurd, David Owen, and Richard Holbrooke. The Dayton Accord of 1995 compromised the sovereignty of the Bosnian state far more than the Rambouillet treaty of 1999 threatened the sovereignty of the Yugoslav state: it abolished the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and recognised Radovan Karadzic’s ‘Republika Srpska’, with rights far greater than those ever offered to the Kosovo Albanians. The left revisionists’ ‘anti-interventionism’ does not seem to extend to these particular instances of Western intervention.
(Excerpt) Read more at glypx.com ...
Hey, Captain Klutz:
In between praying to the God of Just Us, you might wish to note that the (less than sign) p (greater than sign) character is your friend.
I can see old BJ's trying his troll bait, the pathetic little man.
But he sure likes ice cream.
Please don't feed the trolls.
I enjoy talking with you, although we have different perspectives, but you've got to put some paragraphs and spaces in your posts! My old eyes just can't get through all that.
Well, your name-sake's "Kosovo Solution" was in many respects simply an updated version of Cubrilovic's plans.
OK Seselj, how about some truth in advertising--are you an SRS member? And why did you pick the name of an extremist nationalist war criminal for your FReep name? If that is your name or a family name, I apologize; but based on your positions on the issues & that name, I sometimes wonder if I'm typing to someone who's radius of travel is about a 6 x 6 space in Holland.
And why did you pick the name of an extremist nationalist war criminal for your FReep name?>>
You have to excuse him. His jack boots don't fit him very well and he's short tempered.
IN MY POST... (this one just bellow)
Captain Albala
You seem to be very well versed in Serbian legend-history. As all good legend it is based on some historical fact, only it is blown so out of proportion and riddled with so many omissions and conjurations, as to lose it’s factual nature. Case in point your words “Albanians didn't fight Yugoslav partizans within Balli Combetare and SS "Skenderbey"?
Fact: Balli Kombetar was a reactionary force with dubious motivations and shady nature. Sometimes they fought the Germans, sometimes they fought the partisans, because they could not decide which was the greater threat, Nazis or Communism. When they fought the partisans, it was not the Yugoslav partisans, rather it was the Albanian partisans, who as you should know were allied with the Yugoslav partisans. In fact if there ever was any good thing to Communism in the Balkans, it was this sense of “brotherhood”, which existed between the Albanian and Yugoslav communists. Yugoslav communists even made the promise while the outcome of the war was yet uncertain that once the war was over, Kosova would either be returned to Albania, or allowed to decide through a vote
“Between the two World Wars the Yug. Communist Party denounced the ill-treatment of the Kosovars. In 1940, at the fifth Congress of the Party, held in Zagreb, it was resolved that Kosova be returned to Albania (P. Lendvai,Eagles in cobwebs: Nationalism and Communism in the Balkans (N.Y., Doubleday, 1969, p. 183). In 1943, a letter was sent by the Communist Party of Yugoslavia to the Central Committee of the Albanian Communist Party, saying that it was not opportune to discuss the Kosova question at that particular time, because of the German occupation, adding, however, that in the new state of Yugoslavia there would be no "place for the national oppression of the Albanian minorities," and that Kosova would not constitute a problem (see V. Dedijer, YugoslovenskoAlbanski odnosi 1939-1948 (Yugosl.-ALb. relations 1939-1948), Beograd, 1949, p. 134,”
As for the “Skenderbeg” division, this is one of the best fits for the definition of a legend that I have ever seen. Yes there was such a thing, but its numbers and support paled in comparison to the popular anti-axis resistance in Albanian-inhabited territories. If a few Kosovar Albanians were misled to join the Germans, it was because then as now, many of them viewed the Serbs the same way many Serbs viewed them, as mortal enemies.
>>>ofcourse, switching sides is what albanians are best in
Once again for all your erudition, you appear to be incapable of critical thinking when it comes to Balkan history. Do you really believe the phrase above, do you really think the Albanians are the horned, tailed, no opposable thumb monsters they are often portrayed in Serb media as. Albanians have been pro-American throughout the past century, beginning with W. Wilson’s refusal to allow Serbia and Greece to split Albanian territory between them, thereby precluding the existence of an Albanian state. Yes Enver Hoxha declared the US an enemy of the “proletariat”, but even then the US was secretly admired by most Albanians.
As for me. I guarantee you that you know nothing about me or my religion, or how my family kept the Orthodox faith even as everyone around them gave in to Ottoman persecution, or how my great grandfather saved hundreds of Albanian, Yugoslav, and Jewish lives feeding misinformation to the Gestapo, only to be executed by the communists for knowing too much about Enver Hoxha’s way of dealing with opposition. You really should think twice before ever placing a stereotype on a person or group.
>>> Well, US stated in 1998 that KLA was staging terrorist actions.
No it did not. The US never declared the KLA a terrorist group either officially or unofficially, and I dare you to find anything other than the declaration of a meager envoy, which says that.
>>> The most beautiful an noble thing is sense of struggle for justice. You took our land. We want it back. You have powerful protection. We'll wait.
You keep threatening war, for what? For justice? Please give me a break. When you say “You took our land. We want it back” I wish you could step back and see the folly of your position. You are threatening a people with war to insatiate you blind nationalism. I don’t care what you say, you will never hold the moral or spiritual high ground with that type of position. Moreover you are condemning our children to a lifetime of war with no higher purpose, no noble outcome, no end in sight, for you know and I know that it will not be over so easily. I told you before I am not here to get into a pi**ing contest, but I am tired of your constant threats and prejudiced snipes.
>>>"Chi non si vendica, non si santifica"
Santificarsi davanti a chi, Dio? Il mio Dio non vede nazionalita o lingua.
>>>You say you will fight for freedom of people. Why don't you fight form my freedom??!!! I can't speak my own language, I don't have a freedom of movement, I survived a grenade attack, I DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO LIVE!!!
Nennsy, I cannot and do not dismiss the plight of Serbs in Kosova at the moment. Neither do I want to be an appologist for those responsible. Let's face it, there was a war and there were terrible deeds committed, and the hate runs deep. I wish there were a way to change that quickly and easily, but there isn't.
And I am afraid that the solution that might be best from your perspective, is almost certainly the worst solution for the other 2 million people in Kosova. So there is no choice but to look to the long term, and in the long term I am of the conviction that Kosovar independence is best for Albanians and Serbs in Kosova, and for the whole of the Balkans.
>>>we will not give up on Kosovo.
You seem to be of the same opinion expressed by other Serb posters here, that a military solution is desirable. I am sorry, but to me that is pure nationalistic folly.
What Islamic site did you dig this trash article out of? I don't think anyone is forgetting that so many of those mass graves turned out to be full of Serbs not Muslims.
Al Queda was the lead aggressor in that confict. We entered that war on the wrong side to appease Germany and France and there is no hiding it.
>>>I don't think anyone is forgetting that so many of those mass graves turned out to be full of Serbs not Muslims.
If you do not know enough about a certain subject, please just say nothing.
>>>Al Queda was the lead aggressor in that confict.
Al Qaeda has no business in Kosova or Albania, and believe me I think I would know. Once again, if you have nothing informative to say, please say nothing.
tell us, how would you know? you tipped your cover in revealing you have intimate contacts with sources. Your "pacifist" nature here is phoney baloney.
>>>you tipped your cover in revealing you have intimate contacts with sources.
Pssst... Don't tell anybody, but I am Albanian (gasp!), and happen to know what's going in Albania. Point A.
>>>Your "pacifist" nature here is phoney baloney.
This is point B. Now, I'll admit at being pretty good with geometry, but for the life of me I cannot see the straight line or any type of curve that leads from Point A to Point B. Please feel free to enlighten me.
I posed as an Albanian-ally speaking the language to you, in broken-Albanian and you bit. You are phoney-baloney pacifist and are an anti-Serbophobia creten. Your route of problem solving is via force of arms, not dialogue.
>>due to you being an "Albanian", i.e a wannabe-Serb, does not automatically make you an expert, as many Albs and Serbs are very clueless to the world.
No it does not make you an expert automatically, but all you have to do is know a few people (journalists, police chiefs, Internal Security etc.) to be assured that there is no Al Qaeda in Albania or Kosova.
>>>I posed as an Albanian-ally speaking the language to you, in broken-Albanian and you bit. You are phoney-baloney pacifist and are an anti-Serbophobia creten. Your route of problem solving is via force of arms, not dialogue.
First of all try to maintain some resemblance of respect when you speak with someone whom you know nothing about. And when you were posing as Azra I said to you "there is no such thing as Greater Albania, we only have the here and now to worry about".
I know Police and reporters as well, does not make them unbiased. I rely on my own information that I gather on my own.
You should know better then to entrust even your own people in giving pure unbiased information. I know how to tear apart information in print and decode that crap, and then reformulate it to fit your own story.
Now you automatically bill Vojvoda as a war criminal without a trial? another expose, slip of the tongue like your pal, gerardA-mr Albania. Give you boys some time, and you make these mistakes. tsk tsk tsk!
For AlQaeda to get a foothold somewhere, they need a local base of support, This base does not exist in Albania and Kosova. The territory is instead hostile to them, pro-US and anti-fundamentalist.
The only way you'll find AlQaeda in Albania, is undercover. Several came to Albania in the 90s, but were arrested/expelled by joint Albanian/FBI action once the FBI found them out. Since then they have not tried again. Albanians are now naturally suspicious of MiddleEasterns, and ShISh keeps tabs on them constantly.
>>>I rely on my own information that I gather on my own.
Ok, let's see it then.
Al-KLAeda is still there, they are enmeshed into small cells within the region. No one talks about in the US or Euro media as that is a death knelt to anyone who does. Look who would fall from grace if that information was exposed? That fact is covert and will not ever be verified.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.